capital punishment? waht do u think?

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Skullbones


Since when was the justice system about revenge and not protecting people and society. Oh wait... nevermind.

that why in the USA anyone who personally knows the defender or anyone else in the case can't sit in the jury or be the judge so the death penalty is given out of justice not out of revenge. Human Life is suppose to be so precious that anyone who murders automatically forfeits their own life. Death penalty isn't about revenge or uses as a deterrent even though it might deterr crimes but always should be uses to uphold Justice and the value of Human life .

 

[cgannon64]

If the death penalty isn't about revenge, why does the family of the victim watch the killer die?

 

[Skullbones]

Originally posted by Smidlee
Human Life is suppose to be so precious that anyone who murders automatically forfeits their own life. Death penalty isn't about revenge or uses as a deterrent even though it might deterr crimes but always should be uses to uphold Justice and the value of Human life .

So to prove that human life is valuable you want to put people to death?

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by cgannon64
If the death penalty isn't about revenge, why does the family of the victim watch the killer die?

sadly the death penalty(Justice ) in the USA has become a joke.( if you got enough money you can get by with murder) If I was on the jury and found a someone guilty of cold blooded murder I would give him/her the death penalty but I wouldn't rejoice in it either . So far I gald I haven't had to make that tough decision and hope i don't. I also don't know what it like for someone to murder any of my love ones to know how i would feel or what i would do .

 

[cgannon64]

If the death penalty in the US is a joke, show me a place where it isn't one.

It seems to me that the rest of the world either banned the death penalty or is more corrupt than the US.

EDIT: Nations that still execute criminals:

AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

You should notice alot of countries absent from that list.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Smidlee

another interest thing i learn in history ( 19 th cenetury)was someone i read about (i wish i remember his name ) has study bible prophecy and came to the conclusion that before the end times ( because of the mass murdering)could begin the death penalty would have to be done away with or atleast to no affect. It seems he predicted right.

Why dont you expand on this theory. If nothing else, look up some info

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by cgannon64
If the death penalty isn't about revenge, why does the family of the victim watch the killer die?

because they're sick f@#%s, that's why.

@cg: are you sure about Japan?
maybe they have it but don't use it....

 

[Eastern Knight]

Yet another duplicated thread.
The principal is not eye for eye or tooth for tooth. It's to make them suffer! It isn't about revenge. People kill other people, they should pay more than just a life.
Formula: Murder = Life + Suffering

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by sims2789


it still happened. in Greece, some of the more attractive female slaves were forced to be prostitutes. slaves get mistreated by their masters. i suggest you watch Sparticus to see what i mean. here are the problems with slavery. my "bemused dreams" were a reality, except they obviously didn't have strap-ons in the Clasical times.

anyway, slavery happens illegally in the US. the Californian government asked the US government to stop slaves from being imported in San Francisco harbors. the Feds, under Bush, said that they didn't have the money. most of those slaves are women from Indo-China that are forced to be prostitutes.

1) most importantly, it violates basic human rights and the slaves are traumitized thourghout their lives.

2) my nation lost over 600,000 soliders(Federalists[official] only, Confederates also had high deaths) but we also lost countless civilians. my Great-great-great Grandfather fought for the Confederacy, i'm sad to say, and he deserted and moved to Texas to escape the cruelty of the Home Gaurd and the advancing Federal Army. have you seen what Richmond looked like after the Federaists captured it? it looked like Berlin did after the Soviets captured it in WW2. all[well, mostly] because of slavery.

3) least importantly, it is cheaper to use a robot than a slave. factories are almost fully automated. so why waste so-called "human resources" when we don't need to.

4) what if you were a slave?

First two paragraphs are manifestly irrelevant and tangential; without even pausing to ask, 'Well, what is your model, then?', we are presented with a lovely version of history mixed with the mandatory Bush reference.
The paragraph on the Civil War is equally like a pencil with no lead - pointless. On automation, one is not talking about using slaves in factories; using slave labour is, by definition, cheap anyway.

Point 1.) is the nearest to any argument, but is rather simplistic and reductionist. To begin with, human rights are a rather subjective matter, ranging up to nonsense on stilts in some cases, and one is not concerned with them anyway. As for trauma, they earn it, and their feelings do not matter.

The model is that there is a step introduced short of death, but slightly above confinement in the harsh prison camps - the convicted criminal is branded, tagged with microchip, and declared enslaved. They then serve out their days in hard manual labour in wretched places either for the government, or reputable private companies they are sold to. An added deterrent and judicial option which adds variety and flavour to the system of crime and punishment, particularly for repeat offenders of a smaller nature for whom prison did not worked, and can't quite be hanged. It is a better and merciful alternative, in a nice Istarian and Darkshadian manner. And as part of the overall eugenics approach, the problem of successive generations of slaves will be solved by neutering those who are enslaved.

The overall system will feature increased deterrence, and those not swayed by a hard stretch in a corrective labour camp may be given pause by the prospect of being shackled, branded on their face and flank with an 'S', electronically tagged, castrated, beaten and sold at public auction/ceremony, and then made to shovel ordure, clean roads and other...appropriate...tasks for the rest of their days. Not many would enjoy that treatment, although going by the thread about the German dick cannibal...

Thus, the prisons can be kept for an appropriate mixture of rehabilitation and penance for those who still have some hope of redemption, those convicted of capital crimes can be swiftly hanged so they do not corrupt the aforesaid young and wayward, and those who don't quite fit into either category can be punished in a visible way, and money can be made out of their misery.

I am not a slave, nor ever will be. The 'how would you feel' line of argument is again rather pointless.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Laughing Gull
re: innocent
they shouldn't be sentenced to death unless DNA evidence supports the other evidence.

Originally posted by Roundman
To me, the accidental execution of an innocent is the worst thing about the death penalty. I'd modify the system to ensure that only those with clear cut evidence against them (like having a few dozen bodies buried through their house, pictures of the accused killing the victim, etc) would get the death sentence. However, I'd limit the appeals of those who would finally receive the death sentence, to ensure that the execution was completed ithin a year of sentencing. For those without 100% proof, the maximum sentence would be life, no parole. Again, I'd create a special judiciary to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to even begin a capital criminal trial.
[/B]

That's just it. Justice is never 100% correct. Not even with DNA.
I truly believe child molesters, rapists and murderers have forfeited their right to live, but that is, IF we can find them.

But ok, in a highly mediatised case, where DNA evidence is overwhelming, there are credible eye witnesses I would agree to a death sentence. But leaving this option open we run the risk of having more obscure cases, a more impressionable jury (or judge), DNA contamination, or even forged evidence. We can never be sure if some innocents will not slip through the net. NEVER

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by bobgote
@cg: are you sure about Japan?
maybe they have it but don't use it....

They use it alright. Quietly and without fuss, several times a year.

 

[taper]

If you're going to say you don't support capitol punishment because an innocent could be put to death, you're basically voiding out our entire justice system. You're saying it's ok for an innocent to be put in jail for the rest of their lives, but not receive the death penalty? The system is not perfect, and never will be. It is, however, about as good as humanly possible, and significant numbers of guiltly people are not punished, because of the laws protecting the innocent. That said, if one innocent person is given the death penalty, but 1000 real murderers are also taken out of society, it is a tragic, but socially necessary thing. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the one.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by taper
If you're going to say you don't support capitol punishment because an innocent could be put to death, you're basically voiding out our entire justice system. You're saying it's ok for an innocent to be put in jail for the rest of their lives, but not receive the death penalty? The system is not perfect, and never will be. It is, however, about as good as humanly possible, and significant numbers of guiltly people are not punished, because of the laws protecting the innocent. That said, if one innocent person is given the death penalty, but 1000 real murderers are also taken out of society, it is a tragic, but socially necessary thing. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the one.

Again. With life sentence there is still a remote chance an innocent will not be put to death. There is even the remote chance of an aquittal. Life is always better than death. Now if you say a life (or decades) in prison are not worth living, would this mean a condemned should also feel this way?

And also by yout argument, it's worth killing one innocent man for the sake of executing 1000 murderers. Does this mean a human life is worth less than revenge?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Indeedy do. Very right, particularly the last sentence.
And those on death row who are found to be innocent are not evidence of the system failing - they are evidence of it working.

The guilty must be punished, and in this, we can take certain interesting lessons from the Japanese model. Firstly, they do not make a fuss over the affair and turn it into a circus; the name of the executed prisoner and the location of the execution are not released. Secondly, the prisoner is kept in strict solitary confinement, and not told of their execution until a few days before at most. This adds to the punishment and terror of the exercise. These things work for them in their culture

These may seem somewhat at odds with a policy of swift public execution, but such an occurence can occur without being an absolute circus and farce, with appropriate management. The public nature of the act, with young offenders and hooligans forced to attend and watch, adds to the deterrent to society; not so much humiliation to the individual with long drop hanging than with strangulation hanging, though.

The condemned should be informed of their fate, and its general time, though, as the prepared individual is easier to execute on the whole. It can add to punishment in certain ways. But they should be held in strict solitary confinement, with one brief farewell visit from close family after final conviction, and the services of a priest in the intervening days (up to a week maximum).

 

[taper]

I don't understand why oppenents of the death penalty always focus on the revenge portion, rather than the punishment, protection, and deterrent portions of the act. It will always be human nature to want revenge on those that wronged us, yes, but giving a criminal the death penalty also takes care of some other issues.

1. They will pay for their crime, and they know it. Death is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

2. They are no longer, nor will ever be, a danger to society. Even locking them in prison does not take care of this for some people.

3. The knowledge that they themselves will most likely die if they murder someone is a very strong deterrent to crime. We have no way of knowing how many murders this prevented because the killer didn't want to face the punishment.

 

[Zarn]

1) Life imprisonment can be seen as a harsher punishment than death

2) Some can be locked away by themselves. I don't see how a killer in a secured prison is a threat.

3) Life imprisonment is like I said very harsh. Imagine rotting to death, slowly.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The thing about death is...it's actually going to happen to everyone anyway. Maybe, as the poll option says, nobody does deserve to die. But we live in a universe where it is inevitable. When you execute someone, it would be more accurate to say that you're shortening their life, than that you're taking it away.
Life imprisonment is very expensive. Life imprisonment would certainly be unpleasant, but there are certain crimes being commited that call for something a little bit harsher than life imprisonment. I don't really know what that should be, but there you go.

 

[luiz]

As I have already stated, I'm against death penalty for pragmatic reasons. But I don't see why some people here insist that "it's wrong because it's revenge". So what if it's partly revenge? If someone kills one of my beloveds, I don't want him rehabilitated, I want him dead. Don't I have the right to want so? Why should I be forced to swallow that whole "forgive the killer" morale?

 

[Sims2789]

@Simon Darkshade

the problem with slavery as a punishment is that to many innocent people are in jails. that is also why i am against the death penalty. plus, slavery is against basic civil rights.

why not just use chain gangs where criminals have to do hard labor in turn for a reduced setance. anyway, with your law, you could be a slave. all it takes is a crooked cop to plant drugs on you, and wa-la, now you live in Mexico on some factory on their border with America working 18 hours a day, getting whipped, and not getting paid, and you didn't do anything.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by bobgote

@cg: are you sure about Japan?
maybe they have it but don't use it....

I'm sure. They have a list of countries that have the death penalty but haven't used it in the last 5 years or so.